|
Suggest you consult the Pepipoo website or similar.
|
My feeling is that getting involved in a conversation, which will probably be recorded and kept, might not be a good idea. Your daughter can truthfully state, in writing, that she has no knowledge of Vehicle reg No (Whatever the wrong one issued by police is) sign it and send it off. They obviously they got the number right at some stage as they have managed to contact her. Busy time of year, it will probably be filed under too difficult and get forgotten.
Edited by Armitage Shanks {p} on 22/12/2007 at 18:09
|
|
Isn't it a bit unusual to get notification through the post of such an alleged offence? Speeding yes, but not driving "dangerously, carelessly or without reasonable consideration".
|
I would be tempted by AS's suggestion but it would help if you could give more information. I presume the delay was caused by your daughter's not being the registered keeper of the vehicle. Was she hirer, was it leased to her, or what?
And BP's is a good point. The risk is that there is some photographic evidence somewhere. Might she have been using a mobile telephone?
|
Is this a Notice of Intended Prosecution addressed to your daughter?
Is your daughter the registered keeper of the vehicle in question? (notwithstanding a typing error) ?
Was she the driver of the vehicle stated at the time and place stated?
Why could it not have been posted within the 14 days? (Company car?)
What is it alleged that she has done?
Did she actually commit and and offence at the time and date in question? If so what?
More facts please!!
--
Fullchat
|
Is this a Notice of Intended Prosecution addressed to your daughter?
Yes
Is your daughter the registered keeper of the vehicle in question? (notwithstanding a typing error)?
No, SWMBO is.
Was she the driver of the vehicle stated at the time and place stated?
Yes
Why could it not have been posted within the 14 days? (Company car?)
No idea
What is it alleged that she has done?
No details are provided other than an offence under s2/3 RTA 1988
Did she actually commit and and offence at the time and date in question? If so what?
Not to her knowledge and belief
More facts please!!
Thanks, hope the above helps.
-- Fullchat
Edited by hxj on 22/12/2007 at 18:59
|
Thanks. Was the NIP originally sent to SWMBO within 14 days of the alleged offence?
--
Fullchat
Edited by Fullchat on 22/12/2007 at 19:03
|
No.
|
Then it can safely be ignored, or possible returned explaining that it was not delivered to the registered owner within the legally required period. Greater minds than mine will advise on whether to return it or ignore it. Did you keep the envelope in which it arrived (I hope!)
|
Two things I find puzzling:The alleged offence took place on 10 November 2007 and the s172 notice is dated 16 December.
How does your daughter remember being in the vicinity of that location on 10 November after such a long time? (was it is a regular journey? or a very unusual journey?)
How is it that the NIP was sent to her? In other words, how did they know she was the driver when the only record they have is of the Keeper?
Something does not add up.
Has someone reported her driving as dangerous, etc.etc. ?
|
Difficult to say then. If its not been posted to the registered keeper within 14 days then I would say on the facts its void. Unless a collision was involved in which case an NIP is not required.
If it was addressed to your daughter how was that information obtained?
--
Fullchat
|
The plate recorded is AB00CDE and the car was AB00XDE.
I assume you have made up these numbers, except that the C and X bits are real? In which case as C and X are next to each other on the keyboard, the mistake on the NIP can be typo.
Worth checking whether the "AB00XDE" number exists in reality.
|
|
How can AB00 CDE or SDE be a proper allowed number plate even if it was a private one. It could be A800 *** or even CAM 568V!
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 23/12/2007 at 18:31
|
No.
Note he said "sent" and not "received by".
Same answer?
Edited by GroovyMucker on 22/12/2007 at 22:39
|
"The alleged offence took place on 10 November 2007 and the s172 notice is dated 16 December."
I have avoided comment until now, however the evidence of the plate number (right or wrongly recorded) they may only have uncovered the required evidence relating to the car around the second date thus making the NIP "in time" e.g. through CCTV evidence or some witness that came forward after some time - it does happen.
What I really don't understand how this has come to your daughter and not the registered keeper (your wife) how on earth do the Police know that she exists let alone that she was driving at the time of the alleged offence. There are unanswered questions here.
The NIP would have gone to the registered keeper in the first instance, unless the Police had identified the driver through speaking to them at the time (e.g. daughter driving mum's car involved in an incident and Police speak to her identify daughter as driver and then send the NIP to her as they knew she was driving and not the registered keeper as a back up to a verbal NIP).
We need to know more.
|
Thought I'd missed something fundamental, I was mulling over same question as PU.
How did daughter get to be "in frame" if car was registered to someone else - circs suggest her mother?
|
All many thanks for the comments to date, I had concerns over the train of events too.
I have now verbally 'duffed up' daughter (17), showed her all the responses on here and those with the threat of up to 11 points sort of concentrated her mind!
This is what apparently happened.
1. Daughter pulled out of t-junction in rain and dark as cyclist in dark clothes and no lights came off pavement in front of her (Modern estate, probably about 60 houses off road daughter was on, and plenty of camoflague shrubs)
2. No collision, but cyclist abused daughter.
3. PCSO was wandering around roads next day looking for same coloured car, asks SWMBO about car. SWMBO says - yes my daughter did drive yesterday morning, PCSO asks SWMBO to get daughter to ring her.
4. Daughter rings PCSO couple of days latter and explains 1 & 2. PCSO states that daughter knocked cyclist off, daughter accepts that altercation took place but denies hitting cyclist
SWMBO and daughter decide at 1, 2, 3 & 4 not to involve me.
So police aware of driver by say 25 November. No verbal NIP given at any time.
No damage on car, I've checked in detail with torch, and will check again tomorrow in light
Personally I'm happy to let them both 'hang by the neck', but I'd still like to get this sorted.
I've had a look on pepipoo and to be honest 'poo' describes alot of the site pretty well!
Edited by hxj on 22/12/2007 at 23:18
|
I knew the daughter was not telling the whole story!
But... in your first post, you say she's been written to as someone who may have some information, and then later on you say it's a NIP. Which is it?
|
So did I, but needed more to convince her. SWMBO's silence helped to 'tip me off'!
Daughter has section 172 notice that can go to registered keeper or any other person with information. Fullchat referred to a NIP, I assumed, given his background that they were the same - if not apologies
|
Pugugly may probably concur - you need to get daughter to see a solicitor specialising in traffic matters asap.
IANAL but in the circumstances described, the charges seem likely to be quite stiff.
Forget all barrack room lawyers, go see a professional.
|
Legal advice fast. Wife & daughter have known about this for over a month and she could have been innocent but stitched up by now.
But she still might not be telling all.
Trouble is as a new driver she can go back to learner status with 6 points.
Edited by rtj70 on 23/12/2007 at 01:29
|
|
Or she could just send the thing back stating her version of what happened. If it's just the cyclist's word against hers they might decide not to do anything about it. Definitely think you need to find out more about what was said between her and the PCSO.
|
A cyclist, riding on the pavement at night with no lights. Where is his NIP or charge sheet?
|
It would appear that cyclist has made an allegation of dangerous/careless driving of a motor vehicle. For proceedings to succeed for either offence then NOIP has to be served on the driver, where known, or Reg Keeper where not known, within 14 days of the occurrence (ignoring the day of the occurrence). BUT, in the case of an accident this is waived. Cyclist apparently has told PSCO that there was an accident. It does not necessarily follow that there has to be an actual coming together but in these cases to save argument then wise to serve NOIP. Once NOIP served then one has time to make further enquires up to and beyond the 14 days and prepare the neccessary paperwork.
Seems more and more that instead of personal interviews use is being made of 172 RTA 88 to get the name of the driver and once they receive the signed paper back admitting driver this can be used, without any other evidence at Court of the fact that the person was driver (S 12 RT Offenders Act 1988).
Normally for such complaints then Plod will take statement of complaint, together with statements from any other witnnesses and also an interview under caution from the person alleged to have offended and a statement of their account of events. From this file submitted to CPS for their decision as to whether they will run it at Court. Normally a one against one isn't a starter for obvious reasons.
Now the wrong details on the 172. They can ask of ANY person who they think has information leading to ID of a driver (Section 172 (2) (b). It is only at Reg Keeper stage that vehicle is mention. (2) (a). We have an admission that driver appears to have given her details to PCSO and vehicle so in my book they are entitled to ask under 172(2)(b) as ANY person. The 172 will give details of the time,date and place of the incident and whilst they have quoted a VRM incorrect by one character I don't think this is going to provide a cast iron loophole because of the other information on 172.
I would consider being truthful in returning the 172 signed within 28 days otherwise offfence,with information to the effect that no knowledge of driver of incorrect VRM but knowledge of correct VRM. Some will say NO but bear in mind we are not privy to the exchange that went between driver and PSCO and recording of VRM by PSCO. From account above consider what evidence PCSO can put in her statement.
I would also brief driver on responsibilities of drivers in relation to accidents (Section 170 RTA 88) - fail to stop, fail to give details/ report etc.
Once in possession of 172 Plod should arrange interview with driver.
Further consideration I would make is contacting Plod and arrange interview with the officer dealing with the complaint. The arguement will be that no accident took place so NOIP out of date and incorrect VRM stated on 172.
I would suspect bit more than what so far reported.
Please update with developments.
dvd
|
|
Remember that a PCSO has no power to investigate and even if it remembered to give a Caution any response made by your daughter will not be admissible in evidence. See a solicitor.
|
Thanks for update hjx. There was something that was not ringing true and you seem to have unearthed it. I still think there are some facts to come out of exactly what happened.
Mother and Daughter conspiracy! Not nice sleeping in the garage, especially this time of the year ;-)
--
Fullchat
|
Thanks for everyone's help to date.
Currently I think we will do the following:
1. Complete 172 in line with law: ie deny all knowledge of car with incorrect VRM.
2. Submit above with covering letter explaining that actual car was correct VRM, and outlining daughter's version of events.
3. Point out in letter that s172 letter is out of time as there is a 14 day time limit and that no accident occured.
Need to think about it in more detail over Christmas.
|
"Point out in letter that s172 letter is out of time as there is a 14 day time limit and that no accident occured."
Bear in mind that there does not have to be an impact between two road users to fall within the definition of an 'Accident'.
It can be any 'untoward occurance'. For example if the cyclist swerved to avoid an emerging vehicle and fell off thereby sustaining injury, damage to the cycle or either to a third party, then it would be deemed to be an 'Accident'.
--
Fullchat
|
1. One has to otherwise offence committed.
2. Consider in that letter omitting daughters version and leave that until Plod arranges interview. Further if there is an admission that she was driving in that letter consider not signing the letter (172 has to be signed). This will not present them with evidence to use of driver as mentioned above under Road Traffic Offenders Act 88.
3 Be aware that there are two elements in the paperwork.
(a) NOIP - which has to be served in 14days otherwise a bar to any prosecution esxcept in the case where accident involved. Note what Fullchat states and myself earlier.
(b) 172 request by COP to name driver. There is no time limit on this other than 28 days to reply otherwise an offence
At this stage consider refraining from mentioning the NOIP aspect as it is not known the full story regarding accident or just a complaint. That will be or should be when Plod has his interview with the daughter regarding the incident.
This is one of those occurrences I consider will not be processed direct to Court without the account of the daughter. A file minus the account may be viewed by CPS beforehand to access the strength of the evidence which from where I am sitting does not appear strong at the moment.
dvd
|
A file minus the account may be viewed by CPS beforehand to access the strength of the evidence ...
Or the overly-optimistic police may consider (wrongly) they have a file on which they do not need CPS advice and charge anyway. I mention this for the sake of completeness.
|
1. Daughter pulled out of t-junction in rain and dark as cyclist in dark clothes and no lights came off pavement in front of her (Modern estate probably about 60 houses off road daughter was on and plenty of camoflague shrubs)
Mrs BP hit a cyclist in *exactly* the same situation. The cyclist claimed to have come from her right which was ridiculous as he hit the left side of her car - he just rode into the car from straight ahead (off some grassland and between bushes) as she turned right. She was prosecuted and convicted for careless driving.
|
|
Unfortunately, courts seem to assume cyclists are saints (especially children) and motorists are all the spawn of the devil.
|
How many witnesses Bill?
dvd
|
|
|
